Really? Name two instances please.Any time that the obligation is owed to you but you direct the obligor to pay to someone else on your behalf. This happens all the time. You'd do that for your own convenience, but the fact that the check does not have your name on it does not mean it is not income to you. While you don't get the cash in hand, you are exerting control over it nevertheless by directing where the money goes.
Is there also a "code" for not taxing an employee for his personal use of a company car?But the reason it is tax free is because there a particular code section — IRC § 106 — that exempts that from the employee's income. Without that specific exemption in the code, the same principle that I mentioned above would apply: it would be income to the employee even though the check is going the health insurance company rather than the employee directly.
An employee not paying income tax on his healthcare while an individual does is a sham. It should be a write-off for both.
Healthcare is not a necessity. Air, water, clothes, a car, Medicare etc are far more necessities than health insurance. It is just an insurance policy on protecting your net worth incase of a rare catastrophic accident. Who needs insurance to cover penicillin or a fiberglass cast? I've had insurance my whole life and have never needed it. As for ACA, it was a scam to pad the pockets of the "Big Three" (healthcare providers, health insurance and big pharma). I just had about $13,000 of medical bills. My insurance paid less than $2,000 of it. Ya, great necessity. Thanks Obama! Also, folks are still not insured because individual health insurance went up 500%.I and many others would say that health insurance is a necessity, not a luxury. Indeed, Congress thought that too when it passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and required everyone to be covered by some form of health insurance.
If it were up to me, I'd let the insurance company retrieve their own money through their own lawsuit and legal bills. Of course they will take less, they don't deserve a dime from the efforts of the plaintiff's lawyer. But the plaintiff's lawyer will take half of everything so he wants the settlement as high as possible. No wonder they work on contingency, they chase money that the plaintiff will never see.The defendant owes to the plaintiff whatever the judgment or settlement was for the damages incurred. The details of what the plaintiff actually ends up paying is immaterial. The reason that medical providers are willing to settle for less is that they know there is a limited pot from which bills can be paid, and they take what they can get while they can. The defendant does not get to escape its responsibility to pay for all the damages incurred simply because the plaintiff then settles with the medical providers later for less. In short, the defendant has no cause to complain that the medical providers in the end will take less.
Report yourself next time.